Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slp1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (73/0/1); Ended Sat, 24 May 2008 02:40:49 (UTC)

Slp1 (talk · contribs) - Getting a handle on Slp1 was quite a challenge. Most editors have a niche that they tend to fill, but not Slp1. Slp1 is all over the place.

She is active with CSD's, which means, as many of you know, I had to check her edits closely. Since an over eager CSD'er can chase a way a great newbie, I generally don't like CSD'ers and only will recommend the best of the best. While I question some of her use of G1 (blatant nonsense/gibberish), the articles were otherwise speedy deletable. I checked her CSD's going back to January, and every one she tagged deserved to be deleted. I also noticed that Slp often 'fixed' tags of other people who used the incorrect criteria (including removing tags if necessary.) If Slp1 were solely an anti-vandal fighter (or a deletionist), her use of G1 might be enough to get me to oppose, but Slp1 appears to fight vandalism as a change in routine from her normal activities! One of the things that I really liked about reviewing Slp's edits was the fact that there were a few articles that were tagged for deletion that she saved by working on them!

When she stumbles across articles that need help, she will help out. For example, she recently participated in an XfD on an Indian actor. Not only did she defend the actor, but she also contacted the creator and helped educate him on Wikipolicy. She then helped rewrite the article to meet Wikipedia standards. This has led her to make major contributions to what she herself calls "a very bizarre mixture" of articles "that reflect [her] eclectic interests, including some subjects [she] had no interest in at all until [she] waded in to help other editors in the middle of a dispute".

She is active all over the place. She is involved with BLP, COI, and RS discussion boards. She has worked with usernames. Her comments on various talk pages are well thought out and policy driven. While I am very impressed with the rationale behind her contributions, the thing I like the most about Slp1 is that people perceive her as an admin already. Balloonman (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom; most of my interaction with Slp1 (who has edited since April 2006) has been related to the September 2007 featured article review (FAR) of Stuttering, which was revealed by Slp1's due diligence to be based upon marginal sources, including a poor copy of a Usenet FAQ, and which involved a COI with the manufacturer of an electronic fluency device for stuttering. Through that FAR, I observed how Slp1 worked diligently but firmly (with a difficult COI editor) to restore the sourcing and accurate text to several stuttering-related articles. Since then, I've seen Slp1 everywhere: popping up at the Medicine Project, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard answering queries, the COI noticeboard, and I've watched her quality content contributions to Good article William Wilberforce. The medical articles are always in need of more admins, where Slp1 is knowledgeable of sourcing and other policy issues. Slp1 is another of Wiki's valued, civil, courteous content contributors who also understand policies and guidelines and has demonstrated ability and willingness to contribute across the board to Wiki processes and to keep calm in difficult situations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.--Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was at high school, the only prize I ever got was for "All Round Achievement": in other words, I had very broad interests/involvements and was pretty good (though not perhaps outstanding) at many of them. So I was very amused to realize, having read the above, how little had changed in the last few decades! Yes, I am interested in lots of things, and aware that there is plenty more to learn in so many different areas. That's probably why I have so much enjoyed being part of this project: the opportunity to research and write about a variety of topics, the chance to learn to help and collaborate with editors from all over the world with very different backgrounds and perspectives, as well as of course the goal of providing unknown readers with an accurate, fair and balanced encyclopedia to consult.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Though it seems from the comments above that my editing shows more than usual variety, I actually consider myself to be a content editor first and foremost. And I don't plan to change that, or frankly to be a particularly active user of administrative tools. But the researching I like to do also has applications in other domains where I have been active, such as responding to requests for help at various noticeboards such as Biographies of Living People, Reliable Sources, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboards, and in some cases administrative tools would be useful. See for example the BLP violations on Francisco Soberón, noted in this BLP post which ended up with a user being blocked indefinitely.

I could also envisage participating at WP:CSD, WP:PROD and perhaps some straightforward closures at WP:AFD. Balloonman has kindly pointed out my overuse of G1(Patent Nonsense) tag and underuse of G3 (Vandalism) tag when tagging silly articles such as Alvin and the Chipmunks meet Garfield. I blame these errors in part on relying on my memory of an older version of WP:CSD which referenced only the rather strict definition of "pure vandalism" per WP:VANDAL, [1] and did not include the present "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation" qualifier. [Note to self: regularly reread such pages, as they may have become clearer!] Having absorbed this, I checked my last 100 speedy nominations (which took me back to the beginning of December, I'm not that prolific!) and found that 96 have been deleted, one was changed into a redirect and 3 others were copyright vios that either I or others rewrote to avoid deletion. However, I think the reason that I would really enjoy working at WP:CSD would be to save some articles that are tagged too quickly. I have already removed tags I didn't agree with when patrolling newly created pages. As noted below and above, sometimes with a little research and help, an unpromising looking sentence or two can prove to be about a notable and verifiable topic. [2][3][4]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am particularly proud of two quite different types of contributions. My proudest moment as a content editor was when the École Polytechnique massacre article became a featured article and subsequently appeared on the mainpage. Born out of a very difficult dispute (see below), the article went from several requests of comment to become a featured article in less than 6 months. It was there that I learnt the joys of researching and writing and especially collaborating with other editors: though I was perhaps the major contributor of content, the article wouldn't have been anything special at all without the involvement of bobanny, Dina and others. I have been having a similar positive experience on William Wilberforce: we've made it to Good Article and are busy responding to excellent WP:Peer review suggestions before submitting it as a Featured Article candidate. Wish us luck!

The other thing I am quite proud of is the way I have been able to help some new editors and get some new pages get started. While engaging in my occasional patrolling of the new pages page I have seen people having difficulties with the myriad policies, guidelines etc. I have enjoyed helping some of these editors navigate the rules of copyright violations, proving notability and verifiability, avoiding corporate promotion etc. (e.g. User talk:Nkelby, User talk:Last Contrarian, User talk :Glonneman, User talk:Michaelsshaw, User talk:Clearbluepr). And a quick bit of research and editing myself has sometimes contributed to helping an article avoid an early deletion.[5][6][7] Not all the editors have ended up happy with the decisions made. But I was pleased when a proud father, User talk:Emmabentleysdad, upset that his daughter's article had been deleted, nevertheless returned to my page some months later to thank me for the help I had tried to give.[8]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have long found it a bit ironic that as a peaceable person who tends to avoid conflict in real life, it was a dispute that changed my editing style and frequency from that of an irregular gnomish-type editor as it was during my first nine months here (I actually edited first as User:Slp, but forgot my password (oops) and so started again in April 2006 with this unoriginally named account.) As noted above, Ecole Polytechnique Massacre and to a lesser extent Marc Lépine, were the subject of a heated dispute between December 2006 and January 2007, including a user request for comment [9] (not about me!!)

This provided a steep learning curve in Wikipedia content editing, policy and guidelines and how to best to deal with conflict. In particular, be civil and polite, keep calm, seek help (from projects, noticeboards, RFCs, Third opinions etc), think carefully before editing, consider delaying responses to de-escalate the situation (or even not responding at all), do careful research of the topic using WP:reliable sources and state clear opinions based on this and with reference to policy and guidelines. Remember that there are real people at the other end of the screen, with real concerns, opinions, motivations, pressures and feelings. Whether or not I agree with them, whether or not firmness is required, I can still be respectful in my interactions. I have found these approaches have served me well in subsequent disputes that I have become involved in when responding to posts at the BLP, reliable sources and the Canadian Wikipedians and other noticeboards. In quite a number of cases, helping out in the dispute led to doing a good deal of content editing on the articles themselves, and in doing so I have learnt all sorts of fascinating things about an abolitionist, a prisoner in Japan, an American conservative, the Fathers' rights movement, a Japanese word along with many others! In general, while a few people have become a bit nasty,[10] [11][12] life's too short to let online disputes of this sort bother me! And I don't really see that changing in the future.

Optional Question by Trees Rock

4 How can we trust you as a Admin on Wikipedia?

A: Goodness. I'm not sure how one could prove that anybody one knows only on the internet is worthy of trust. But there are some good indicators: Dr Phil says that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and I think he's right, even if I feel slightly embarrassed to quote him! An RFA is an opportunity to collect multiple editors' opinions of an editor's past behaviour, by looking at edits and by hearing from other editors who have interacted with the person, with the goal of determining if the candidate is worthy of trust. Hopefully my past edits indicate that I can be. --Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from CycloneNimrod

5. Over your time here at Wikipedia, what is the most important lesson you've learnt?

• A:I think the most important lesson I have learnt is that very often in everyday editing, there is no rush. Responding too quickly, editing too quickly, reverting too quickly can be a mistake. Talkpage and article edits tend to be better and more productive when one takes the time to ensure they are well researched, clearly thought out and carefully expressed. Leaving an edit one hates in an article while discussing it one the talkpage can be irritating, but may be a better way forward in the longterm. Not always, of course, and there are many instances (e.g. BLP violations) when quick and decisive action is required.

6. Can you tell me what procedures you would follow if user Jirgrfdsfg9764 requested that you:

• 6a. Need to block a certain user?

• A: Well, I must say that someone telling me that I "need to block" a certain user would raise a variety questions and doubts in my mind. It doesn't seem to be a usual route for administrator action, as far as I aware, and careful investigations would be needed to try and figure out what was going on. Is this an attempt at oneupmanship in a dispute? What are the specific actions/edits that are being used to justify this request? What are Jirgrfdsfg9764's edits like? Has the editor been adequately warned? Are blocks going to prove preventive or would another intervention be more helpful? Depending on the situation, including whether I felt confident enough of making the right decision, I might easily also consider directing Jirgrfdsfg9764 to other venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:3RR--Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 6b. Requested you to protect an article that is linked to the main page?

• A: Once again, I would be cautious. I know that I should be partly because I once requested protection for the Main Page featured article and was politely informed that it wasn't done! There are specific guidelines for protecting articles linked to the mainpage at WP:MPFAP, and they advise that protecting the articles, particularly the Main Page featured article, is done only rarely, when extreme vandalism is being experienced. Other methods, such as blocking editors/IPs may be preferred. Getting consensus for protection of the Main Page featured article (on WP:ANI, say) would be probably be advisable. Short-term semi-protecting other mainpage linked articles are probably less controversial given high levels of vandalism, and in fact the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre page was semi- protected [13] while linked to the main page due to many disruptive edits from changing IP addresses. --Slp1 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Zginder

7. What do you consider the most important Wikipedia Policy and why? Zginder 2008-05-17T02:20Z (UTC)

A: Mmm. Not an easy question, as policies focus on such very different aspects of editing as editor behaviour and article content policies, as well as the famous Ignore all the Rules and What Wikipedia is Not. But if I must choose one I will say Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think appropriate sourcing of edits to reliable sources positively affects many aspects of WP's articles, can even help focus issues in dispute situations. WP:V increases the likelihood of accuracy of the articles, and reduces the ability of editors to introduce original research, opinion, rumour, into articles, particularly important in BLP articles. Rigorous referencing from high quality sources can also help in part with maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding undue weight in articles. All very important in any credible encyclopedia. A reference or two can help to prove notability and that an article needs to be kept. And finally, my experience is that getting editors agreeing to cite all statements in an article can be a useful step to resolution and consensus during a dispute. Slp1 (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to write a long narrative on these, unless you want to. The answers can be short.  :)

8. When can you apply an IP block exemption to a username.

A: In general, when an IP block is affecting a user with good editing history who promises not to mis-use the exemption by editing through a blocked anonymizing proxy. All I know about this comes from this policy page Wikipedia:IP block exemption. However, I confess that my understanding of things like Tor and anonymizing proxies and range blocks is weak in the extreme (wrong background/age, perhaps?) and I would refer such cases on to people who would have a better grasp of these things.Slp1 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Someone inserts unsourced negative information into a biography, and you have already reverted them, twice... what options are available to you when he/she reinserts this information a third time, after being warned?

A: Can I ask if this is a bio of a living person, or a person "who has ceased to be"?Slp1 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer above. For (9) this is a recently deceased or currently living person. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The options that I see are: see whether the edit is verifiable myself and add the citation if so (though hopefully I would have done that already!). If not, revert and either add a further graduated/final warning to the editor (my experience is that often it takes more that 2 warnings for things to sink in with people that "it ain't gonna happen"), engage the editor in some personal discussion about BLP policy etc, block the editor or protect the page. What I would actually do would depend on the specifics of the situation: the nature of the negative information, the status and previous edits of the editor (new/SPA/established/IP), whether multiple IPs were involved, the duration of time between insertions of the material, what kind of warnings had been issue before etc.--Slp1 (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Slp1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Slp1: Slp1 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Slp1 before commenting.

• Would it be worthwhile to include the details of Slp (talk · contribs) (note I have sneakily done so in a small way) for this RfA? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this link to Wannabe Kate's tool result do the deed? [14] --Slp1 (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes?LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. Balloonman + SandyGeorgia? Co-noms? Seriously? Good gravy, just give Slp the mop! No need to bother with an rfa...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. No problems here whatsoever. Glad to have you (almost) on the team! Malinaccier (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. I've had the pleasure of working with Slp1 on several articles, including Nicholas John Baker, gaijin, and G. Edward Griffin -- to name a few. She is one of the most civil, policy-oriented, article-oriented, and professional editors that I know. I support her nomination without reservation. J Readings (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Co-nom Support, obviously :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support -- per the first three answers! I trust the rest shall be just as good? = ) Best of luck. --Cameron (t|p|c) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I think she would be a great administrator for our community. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Conditional support upon good answers to optional questions. Strong support per answers to questions. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - I usually don't support based on co-nominations, but those explanations and diffs leave a really really good taste in my mouth. I can sympathize with a few misplaced CSD tags, but you know what? She removed faulty ones. Good for you. You have Wisdom89's support, for whatever it is worth. Good luck. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Good Great answer to Q4. Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   86.137.221.99 (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Ips cannot vote. Howver, I am willing to fill the place of the support. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. A steady hand on the wheel for a long time. Love the answer to question #5 as well. I really wish more admins had that attitude. --JayHenry (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, exactly the kind of user and admin we need more of. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support good editor. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. I have William Wilberforce and Learned Hand watchlisted, so I see daily what a smart and collaborative editor Slp1 is. qp10qp (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong support All of my interactions with Slp1 indicate that she is extremely qualified for the mop, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - very conscientious, places strong emphasis on communication and collaboration, and has a good grasp of policy. I trust her to make considered decisions. Risker (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support wowed by nom - cool person. All the best! Vishnava (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Per WP:WTHN. asenine ^{say what?} 05:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support as I could not come up with any compelling reason not to (as apparently so far no one else has either). Bonne chance! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. There are many excellent reasons to support this user - Firstly, they are exceptionally well-rounded, contributing to WP:CSD, vandal-fighting, and article work. Another terrific anecdote is her civility level, which is excellent and necessary particularly in the administrative tasks she intends to take part in. The two nominators (who appear to be nominating contributors like crazy these days) are both, IMHO, highly trustworthy and experienced contributors, whose judgement I fully trust. Finally, her answers to the questions exhibit a well-versed understanding of policy and a willingness to assist the project. Absolutely no reason whatsoever to oppose this contributor. Valtoras (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support per great nomination, see nothing to make me think user will not use the tools appropriately. Davewild (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, seems no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Yes please! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. A dedicated cleaner, with a cool head and good approach to improving content. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support per answer to my question. Zginder 2008-05-17T12:44Z (UTC)
27. Support well-rounded, nice answers to questions. Spencer^T♦C 12:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Best answers to the questions that I've seen in some time. Deor (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Thoughtful and impressive answers to the questions. Seems level-headed and mature. If there was anything to waver over (there wasn't) her statements about verifiability would have clinched it for me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Strong candidate, no concerns. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support – Your answer to question #5 gave me all the reasons I needed to express a support opinion. Many here, at Wikipedia, believe that it is all about edit count – or how many GA & FA’s the individual participated in, in so many months. And they are important to a certain degree. However, when it comes to our Administrators I personally prefer the slow and easy method. Great answer. Regarding the rest of your qualifications: Over 2 years of consistent, quality contributions – the times you had to be tough you were – no incivility issues – an edit count that shows article building. Overall excellent job. Good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Good content editor, and, besides quoting Dr Phil, see no reason to deny user the tools if she needs 'em. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. At times I will pick a random RFA to comment on. After reviewing this candidates contributions, and asking a couple of clarifying question, I feel comfortable this editor will not abuse the tools. This one has my support. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Slp is a good editor, who has impressed me with any work I have seen around the project. Strong article contributions and co-nominations; sound answers to the questions, which demonstrate competence; contribution history shows that he's trustworthy. I have no problems here; good luck! Anthøny 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Support --Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. The candidate builds quality content and works well with others. Majoreditor (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per Keeper, plus everything appears fine in all the right places. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Quite the polymath. You absolutely deserve this. Have fun with the mop! Paragon12321 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - a very good editor who'll make good use of the tools. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - Balloonman + SandyGeorgia, I have nothing to worry about. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. "My proudest moment as a content editor was when the École Polytechnique massacre article became a featured article and subsequently appeared on the mainpage". That kind of "dedication to the cause", plus no other obvious issues, equals a support every day of the week. Definitely not your stereotypical sign-up-and-revert-using-twinkle-till-I-can-pass-RfA candidate which tend to cause most of the problems due to a lack of discretion, understanding of more complex users and ability to interact intelligently. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. A fine candidate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support wonderful user, will definitely use the tools wisely. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Looks all in order. Good luck! GlassCobra 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Love her answers to the questions, trust Sandy's perception of her as a careful architect of articles. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - per answers to questions and looking at past edits. Careful attention to detail, lots of activity on article talk pages. Let's have more Wikipedians like this as admins!  Frank  |  talk  23:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - Sandy + I've seen this editor around and I'm confident she will use the tools in a responsible manner. --CapitalR (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per nominations and the responses to all of the questions. They show that you have a deep understanding of all the relevant policies that administrators have to deal with, and I would be glad if you became an administrator. Good luck! Razorflame Report false positives 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support clear net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Suppport. I like what I see in contribs, and I'm very impressed with the tone of communication with other editors. I've tracked a number of threads on her talk page, and I find her helpful and civil. I like the attitude towards speedy deletions reflected in the answer to question #1 above, as it suggests the nom intends to bring critical thinking into responding to CSD tags. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Rudget (Help?) 17:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - Can not find a reason to oppose (even after digging pretty deep). Tiptoety ^talk 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I could have told you that!Balloonman (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, damn...I wish I would have asked then, cause I spent a good amount of time trying to find some reason to oppose. :D Tiptoety ^talk 19:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

54. Support per noms and everyone else in this list. Cant find a single reason to oppose.  ;) Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support In my experience, Slp1 is a hardworking editor who is consistently civil and fair in her dealings with others. I have much respect for the work she does and believe she is a true asset to the project. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support I'm thoroughly impressed with the well-roundedness of the candidate's contributions to the project. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Are you married? The Transhumanist 00:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - super editor. Kinda and considerate, never BITEy. She will make a fine admin - Alison ^❤ 07:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support, support, support. Nuff said, she'll be a great admin. I wish her the best of luck. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support : I havent had any interactions with the person yet but I dont find any reason I should oppose her. Her answers impress me , indicates me how serious she is for the job. You have a steady editing pattern. Have seen many people suddenly increasing edit counts and then coming to RFA. Full support and best wishes to you -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong support. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. I'm always amazed by Slp1's patience on École Polytechnique massacre.-Wafulz (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support after consideration.--Appletrees (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Very good answers to questions - seems serious, dedicated, and respected. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. +Support Ling.Nut (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Strong support. She looks like a great editor. She meets all my standards. Best of luck! Bearian (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. +Support Has been around since April 2006 with over 4000 mainspace edits.No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Per nom Support Balloonman (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Post nom support Fine candidate. No concerns, no big deal. I made it, great. Cenarium (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Good editor, no major concerns.--CreazySuit (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent editor with many abilities to developte to Wikipedia but I have a doubt that she is capable of handling disputed and heated matters when a conflict is raised. --Appletrees (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respect your stance, but may I ask how and why you formulated such an opinion? Any diffs that you could provide would be useful. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was very impressed by her advanced level of French ability and acute insight which helped to clean the WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability concern raised at Christian_Polak created by User:PHG. However, that good impression from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Polak and Talk:Christian Polak is only lain for her contributions "as an editor", not " meditator" to resolve the dispute around the issues. I felt she hesitated about her position at that time. I also saw her several commenting some matters at ANI a couple of time, but also have the same impression. I don't have anything against her great jobs, but I'm not sure of her with admin tool when people need her help as administrator.--Appletrees (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for positive feedback, Appletrees, even if you oppose. While I may hesitate at times (often not such a bad thing at times, I think!), I also sometimes make a conscious decision that my involvement and contributions may be more fruitful if I remain neutral and don't explicitly commit myself to one position or another. The Christian Polak article is a specific example of just such a decision. In other situations I make other choices. See Talk:Hoofer Sailing Club, Talk:Genie (feral child),Talk:Treatment of multiple sclerosis‎. --Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As her nom, it was her contribs to Talk:Genie (feral child) that really impressed me.Balloonman (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the enlightenment, but I need "many time" to read through them for reconsideration.--Appletrees (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the mentioned pages cleared my doubt over her ability as a meditator, I change my vote to support. She will be a good admin with the tools--Appletrees (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.